The debate on nanoparticle silver rages on, this time in the form of a CNN news item that presents both the benefits and concerns surrounding the miracle metal.
At the forefront is the material’s many beneficial uses at the nanoscale. Ionic silver is often touted as an effective antimicrobial that can be used in hospitals and commercial OTC products with minimal risk to humans. For example, Noble Biomaterials makes X-Static, which according to company president Bill McNally is used in sportswear, socks, hospital linens, and military uniforms.
“Silver [is] antibacterial. It’s used in every burn care center,” McNally told CNN.
On the other side are critics whose concerns are two-fold. The first is that silver’s properties may hold unknown consequences to the environment. The second is that silver’s popularity may increase that risk.
Andrew Maynard, science adviser to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, a joint effort of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Pew Charitable Trusts said silver’s ability to use multiple mechanisms to target germs otherwise resistant to antibiotics makes it especially effective, but also may make it persist longer in the environment.
“There isn’t a huge amount that is unknown [about silver],” said Maynard. “Is there any risk to the environment? That’s a little bit fuzzier. There are issues out there [for which] there aren’t easy answers.”
“The projected uses are just too broad,” said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the National Resources Defense Council. “It is being used around the world in anything that you would want to kill bacteria … It’s reckless [and] many of the uses are frivolous.”.
But is singling out nanotech silver is unfair? Michael DiRienzo, executive director of The Silver Institute, an industry trade group said silver is viewed as less dangerous than most other metals and is being used in microscopic quantities.
“We’re encouraging the federal government not to rush headfirst into regulations,” he said, although he does not oppose registering silver-containing products to EPA.
So who is right? Industry has a significant economic interest in making sure silver is safe. But will the lure of prosperity override the concerns for environment?Can we trust EPA, which has been accused of bowing to industry and political pressures in the past, to make the best decision?
This may be an example of quick adoption and regrets later, or it could just be fear of the unknown standing in the way of significant medical breakthroughs.
I personally think regulation would be the safest course. And a manufacturer of silver-containing products might agree, if only to allay these fears and get back to the business of business.